Taking exception to an interview given to a Bengali news channel by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court who is hearing a chunk of cases in the state’s cash-for-jobs scam, the Supreme Court observed that the judge would have to recuse himself from hearing cases against Trinamul Congress national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee if it turns out that he spoke against Banerjee in the said interview.

The Apex court on Monday sought a report in the form of an affidavit within Friday from the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court on whether Justice Gangopadhyay was interviewed on the pending case related to the recruitment scam in Bengal. The report, the Bench directed, would have to be submitted to the Supreme Court Registrar Judicial after verifying from the judge and should include a clarification.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha was hearing a challenge petition filed by Banerjee against Justice Gangopadhyay’s 13 April order enabling the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to question Banerjee alongside Kuntal Ghosh, a scam accused now in jail, in connection with his out-of-court remarks where he alleged that he was being pressured by central probe agencies to name the TMC leader in the case.

Justice Gangopadhyay had also directed the state police not to lodge any FIR against CBI and Enforcement Directorate officers probing the alleged scam.

While Banerjee filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Supreme Court challenging that order, the top court on 17 April had granted an interim stay on Justice Gangopadhyay’s judgment pending completion of hearing of the challenge petition or till it gave further orders in the matter.

On Monday, the second day of hearing, the court took cognizance of a transcript of the judge’s TV interview which was placed by the petitioner before the Bench and stated that a different Bench would have to hear the matter if the allegation was found to be true.

“If he has done so then he cannot participate anymore. We will not touch the investigation but when a judge gives an opinion on the petitioner on a TV debate.. then he cannot hear it. The High Court chief then has to constitute a new bench. But this is a case about a political personality and we entertained this on the way the judge handled this matter. This cannot be the way,” the Bench stated.

"I just want to say that judges have no business granting interviews on matters which are pending. If he said that about the petitioner, he has no business participating in the proceedings. The question is whether a judge who has made statements like these about a political personality - should he be allowed to participate in the hearings? There has to be some process," CJI Chandrachud observed during the course of hearing and maintained that while the court was not getting into the merits of the case just yet, it was important to know if Justice Gangopadhyay had granted the said interview or not.Banerjee’s appeal claimed that the High Court cast "unsubstantiated aspersions" on him and effectively directed the CBI and ED to initiate investigation against him, despite the fact that he was neither a party nor connected to the writ petition being heard. The petitioner highlighted that the judge who passed the order had expressed his dislike for the TMC leader in an interview given to a news channel last September.

It was also claimed that the judge had made remarks against Supreme Court judges who were hearing appeals against his order in the case. This was after the Apex court had earlier called for an interim stay on the High Court order for CBI and ED probes against the accused.

During a hearing, Justice Gangopadhyay had reportedly asked in open court, "Supreme Court judges can do whatever they want? Is this a Zamindari?"

In this context, the SLP stated, "The fact that judicial orders passed by the highest court of the land, are not only under scrutiny but criticism in the most cavalier manner by the said Ld. Single Judge, calls for intervention by this Hon’ble Court so as to ensure that the majesty of the Institution is maintained and the faith which a common man deposes in it stands strong."